update_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful partial-update contract ('only the fields you provide are changed; the rest are left as-is'), which explains idempotence in practice but says nothing about what destruction means here or how failures behave.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, no filler. The second sentence slightly duplicates the per-parameter 'Omit to leave unchanged' notes already in the schema, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity single-object update with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the necessary scope and mutation semantics. Return behavior is unspecified, but no output schema exists and this is a straightforward edit, so the gap is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually documented as 'New X. Omit to leave unchanged.' The description restates the same field list and the same omit-to-preserve semantics, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (edit/update) and resource (an existing source) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly which object this targets. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent mutation siblings such as update_object_fields or update_citation, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_object_fields, nor any prerequisite or permission guidance. The only conditional information given is about which fields change, not about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.